All-Time Matchup Thread

[dramachild11]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

shaq vs. wilt

[st0rmb11]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

For me, Wilt Chamberlain is one of the 3 or 4 most overrated players ever. But, that could just be because I have a big problem with his mentality and mindset and overall selfishness. He never did anything for the betterment of the team. Even the year he led the league in assists - he did it because he wanted to prove that a center could do that. He lost them a HUGE playoff game that year by never shooting because he wanted to pass the ball around, and when his teammates hit a combined like..8-30, he blamed them for the loss.

I go Shaquille O'Neal.


How about this one...


Tracy McGrady vs Julius Erving. Personally, I think McGrady, in his prime, was much better than Erving.

[BNA95]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

For me, Wilt Chamberlain is one of the 3 or 4 most overrated players ever. But, that could just be because I have a big problem with his mentality and mindset and overall selfishness. He never did anything for the betterment of the team. Even the year he led the league in assists - he did it because he wanted to prove that a center could do that. He lost them a HUGE playoff game that year by never shooting because he wanted to pass the ball around, and when his teammates hit a combined like..8-30, he blamed them for the loss.

I go Shaquille O'Neal.


How about this one...


Tracy McGrady vs Julius Erving. Personally, I think McGrady, in his prime, was much better than Erving.

Dr. J... http://youtu.be/NZOnvr2dTyk

Nash v Stockton

[dramachild11]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

stormb11 i understand your beef with wilt being personal so i wont argue that part, but i will say that anytime one player by himself forces a league to change its own rules that must mean your having a TREMENDOUS impact.. plus kobe has done something similar with passing instead of shooting just to prove a point (in the playoffs no less!! lol)... as for nash/stockton id have to take nash simply cause he didnt have an all time great on his team while he was dominating, plus ive always hated stockton anyway hahaha

[st0rmb11]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

stormb11 i understand your beef with wilt being personal so i wont argue that part, but i will say that anytime one player by himself forces a league to change its own rules that must mean your having a TREMENDOUS impact.. plus kobe has done something similar with passing instead of shooting just to prove a point (in the playoffs no less!! lol)... as for nash/stockton id have to take nash simply cause he didnt have an all time great on his team while he was dominating, plus ive always hated stockton anyway hahaha

I know Kobe's done that. and I don't like him, either. But not for that reason (and that's not the only reason I dislike Wilt.) They're both supremely selfish and gratuitous ball hogs.
The Wilt thing about getting the rules changed - that doesn't make him a great player; that means he was the first big guy to REALLY utilize his height and athleticism. You know who else forced the league to change rules? Alonzo Mourning, Brian Grant, Patrick Ewing, Larry Johnson, and all of the 1998 Knicks & Heat. That doesn't say anything for their skills; that just says they were the worst offenders at abusing a broken rule.

Dr. J... http://youtu.be/NZOnvr2dTyk

Nash v Stockton

What does that link do to answer the question? I wasn't asking who was fancier and more innovative.

I was asking (and I'll ask again)

Who was better in their primes? Tracy McGrady or Julius Erving. I go McGrady. He could pass, defend, & shoot

to answer yours - Give me Stockton. Nash is a better shooter, but Stockton was a better passer. Not just on pick & roll plays, but he delivered the ball perfectly to anyone in any situation. He got so many assists just from passing the ball right where a shooter wanted to catch it. Also, he was a very good defender.

[BringTheHeat]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

To answer my original question, I'd take Pippen over Durant as well. Defense over "offense" any day.
CP3 vs Stockton: I'd take Stockton, mainly for personal liking of him, CP3 is probably better though.
Shaq vs Wilt: Shaq, agreed with above about how selfish Wilt was, he was dominant, but the whole lazy on defense so he wouldn't foul out is one thing that really bugs me.
McGrady vs Julius: I'd say McGrady. If injuries hadn't slowed him (and Penny) down, who knows if we'd be talking about Kobe like we do today.

So I ask this one, Derrick Rose or Allen Iverson?

[Dice]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

So I ask this one, Derrick Rose or Allen Iverson?

Good one. I'll tackle this one.

OFFENSE:
Shooting: Neither players are great 3 point shooters. They both only take the shot when the defense gives it to them. Rose still has a better ceiling to be a great shooter. Iverson has been good at best. Both are solid mid-range shooters. I’ll give the edge to Rose because he has more room for improvement. Edge: Rose

Passing: Both players are score first guards. Rose is more of a point guard than Iverson. However, this is the weaker part of Rose’s game. Which is not bad because as with his shooting, he’s got the potential to be a lot better. Iverson in his early years was a good point guard. BUT he can’t run a team like a traditional point guard and Rose is more of a traditional point guard than Iverson. Edge: Rose

Scoring: If Rose was a two guard, he’d be one of the best scorers in the league. Even though he has a score first mentality at the point guard spot, he’s still a point guard who can score. Iverson in his prime was one of the best scorers on the planet. The one players during that time that rivaled him was Kobe, McGrady, Vince and Shaq. All of them well over 6’6”, while Iverson barley stood 6’0”. Not bad company to be in considering his height. Edge: Iverson

DEFENSE:
On-Ball: Rose through his first few years has steadily improved with his defense, thanks to Thibs. Thibs, being a defensive minded coach, has been instrumental in Rose’s defensive improvement. Rose is about average height and size for a point guard. BUT what gives him a competitive advantage is his strength. He’s unusually strong for a guy his size. And it’s no secret that he’s freakishly athletic for a point guard. A physical skill he not only uses on the offensive end. Iverson is short in terms of NBA height so most of the guards he faces are bigger than him. Iverson can stay in front of quick guards but he’ll easily get bullied by bigger guards. Edge: Rose

Off-Ball: Here is where Iverson makes his money on the defensive end. Since he’s not a great on-ball defender, he needs to disrupt the offense by playing the passing lanes. Which in his prime, he did very well. Once that first initial pass from the point guard was made, everyone focused on Iverson because he was lurking somewhere to make a play on the ball. Yeah, he cheated and gambled a lot BUT most times he succeeded. Rose is defensively disciplined and runs the defensive scheme that Thibs employs for the Bulls. Although I’ll give the edge to Iverson, Rose is not that far behind in terms of skill. If Rose was given the freedom to roam defensively, he’d be up there. Edge: Iverson

INTANGIBLES:
Leadership: Derrick Rose really believes in himself and his teammates. When he lost to the Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals last year, he believed that it was HIS FAULT that the Bulls lost that series and it was all on him. Despite the fact that evidence shows that blame could be placed on everybody on the Bulls but Rose. BUT Rose stood up and took the brunt of the burden. It’s like he wants that burden. Iverson as well took the burden and wanted it at points of his career. However, the difference between Iverson and Rose is that when the going got tough, Iverson didn’t want it anymore. And it seems like Iverson only wanted to be a leader when Larry Brown was his coach. Which to me, makes Larry Brown more of the leader of that 2001 squad that went to the Finals that year. Edge: Rose

Attitude: As stated in the earlier paragraph, Iverson only wanted to be the leader when Larry Brown was his coach. After Brown stopped being his coach, Iverson started veering out on his own as a player. And it progressively got worst as the years went on. It got to a point where after he was released by Memphis, no one wanted to sign Iverson, despite the fact that he was still a decent player. That says a lot when you got a guy who could still score 20 points a game and nobody wants to be bothered with you. Rose has been blessed by being coached by one of the better coaches in the game today in Thibs. However, Rose in his first two years had to deal with Vinny Del Negro. And despite the fact that he could have shouted out against him for holding him back and being right about it, Rose just shut his mouth and continued to play ball and listen to his inept coach. Says a lot about character and attitude. Edge: Rose(by a mile)

OVERALL:
I guess when it comes to adding a scorer who can make a difference, you’d have to go with Iverson. BUT despite the fact that both can be franchise players, if you asked me the question of who would you select between the two to start a franchise with, I’d take Derrick Rose. Edge: Derrick Rose




Ray Allen vs Joe Dumars

[st0rmb11]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

great call, Dice. I was worried that people would come in here and try to argue why Iverson was better.


Dumars & Allen? Hmm. Man, I know I was singing Allen's praises in the Ray Allen vs Reggie Miller thread, but I have to go Dumars.

He wasn't as good a shooter (from deep) as Ray is, but he had a great mid-range game. His defense was FAR superior. He could get to the basket when he needed to. And, he could create for others much better than Ray. I don't know how there career assist totals compare, but the eye test tells me that Dumars was a much better passer and facilitator.

Alonzo Mourning vs Dwight Howard

[nowitsourtime]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

Tim Duncan or Karl Malone?

[Sam Marlowe]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

I go with Duncan all the way. You could argue that Malone was a better passer and on ball defender but neither advantage he might have had in those areas makes up for Duncan having the advantage overall.

[Sam Marlowe]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

Kareem or The Dream?

[st0rmb11]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

I go with Duncan all the way. You could argue that Malone was a better passer and on ball defender but neither advantage he might have had in those areas makes up for Duncan having the advantage overall.

No you couldn't.

and this isn't aimed at you, Sam, (more at nowitsourtime) I thought the idea was to come in, answer the previous comparison asked, then pose your own comparative questions...not come in and just throw out a comparison, and leave. This clogs up things, by having multiple comparisons going at once.

To answer you, Sam - I would go with Kareem. He had longevity. He was a great shot blocker (as was Olajuwon). Very solid rebounder (as was Olajuwon). I know Olajuwon had about 500 more blocks than Jabbar, but they didn't keep track of blocks for the first 4 years of Kareem's career (and based on what Kareem did in his next 4 season when they WERE keeping track, he had 1094 blocks, so he would have, by far, surpassed Hakeem). Kareem was a very underrated passer. Olajuwon was a solid passer. Kareem was a more traditional center, where as Olajuwon was a face up, jump shot big man. I guess what it boils down to what you prefer as a fan. I would go Kareem, if for no other reason than him maintaining a very high level of play for nearly 20 years.

Once again, I will ask

Alonzo Mourning vs Dwight Howard (I go 'Zo)

[nowitsourtime]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

No you couldn't.

and this isn't aimed at you, Sam, (more at nowitsourtime) I thought the idea was to come in, answer the previous comparison asked, then pose your own comparative questions...not come in and just throw out a comparison, and leave. This clogs up things, by having multiple comparisons going at once.

To answer you, Sam - I would go with Kareem. He had longevity. He was a great shot blocker (as was Olajuwon). Very solid rebounder (as was Olajuwon). I know Olajuwon had about 500 more blocks than Jabbar, but they didn't keep track of blocks for the first 4 years of Kareem's career (and based on what Kareem did in his next 4 season when they WERE keeping track, he had 1094 blocks, so he would have, by far, surpassed Hakeem). Kareem was a very underrated passer. Olajuwon was a solid passer. Kareem was a more traditional center, where as Olajuwon was a face up, jump shot big man. I guess what it boils down to what you prefer as a fan. I would go Kareem, if for no other reason than him maintaining a very high level of play for nearly 20 years.

Once again, I will ask

Alonzo Mourning vs Dwight Howard (I go 'Zo)

I am away from my computer and I'd rather not answer questions with much detail or depth without spending 30 minutes trying to type it

[PaperChasing59]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

Yeah Alonzo and Dwight were both very good, Alonzo had some health issues that slowed him down but was always a good defender. Dwight Howard is more athletic but its a hard one to decide. Zo was a warrior and it showed in his play, Dwight is seen as a joker and can rub people the wrong way sometimes, fair or not but that's the rap on him. I would go with Dwight tho because of the potential in the future and the rebounding, very close.

Clyde Drexler or Carmelo Anthony, I would take Drexler whats your guys opinions?

[st0rmb11]

Re: All-Time Matchup Thread

Yeah Alonzo and Dwight were both very good, Alonzo had some health issues that slowed him down but was always a good defender. Dwight Howard is more athletic but its a hard one to decide. Zo was a warrior and it showed in his play, Dwight is seen as a joker and can rub people the wrong way sometimes, fair or not but that's the rap on him. I would go with Dwight tho because of the potential in the future and the rebounding, very close.

Clyde Drexler or Carmelo Anthony, I would take Drexler whats your guys opinions?

that's a fair enough assessment. I went with 'Zo for his offensive game, and I see them as equal defenders; Zo may even have been better on-ball.

Drexler & Anthony - neither are/were great defenders, though Drexler was much better. Melo has better handles and can create himself a shot much easier, but Clyde could get to the rim almost at will. Melo has a significantly better outside shot and mid range shot and post shot.
I always felt like Drexler was a really good player, who was better suited for a #2 option. I feel like Anthony is a better #1 option than Drexler, and I think Anthony (when he wants to) can pass better than Drexler.
Anthony has also proven that he is a very clutch player; Clyde? not so much. He was okay in the clutch, but was pretty average, for the most part.

I think I have to go Carmelo Anthony because he is, at this point, a more well-rounded player, and his career is still only about half way over.

Tim Duncan vs Kevin McHale